This article was downloaded by: [University of Otago]

On: 17 February 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 904081294]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297833

Research to Estimate and Manage Carrying Capacity of a Tourist

Attraction: A Study of Alcatraz Island
Robert Manning; Benjamin Wang; William Valliere; Steven Lawson; Peter Newman

To cite this Article Manning, Robert, Wang, Benjamin, Valliere, William, Lawson, Steven and Newman, Peter(2002)

'Research to Estimate and Manage Carrying Capacity of a Tourist Attraction: A Study of Alcatraz Island', Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 10: 5, 388 404
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09669580208667175
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580208667175

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Research to Estimate and Manage

Carrying Capacity of a Tourist Attraction:
A Study of Alcatraz Island

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

Robert Manning, Benjamin Wang, William Valliere, Steven Lawson, Peter

Newman
Recreation Management Programme, School of Natural Resources, 356
Aiken Center, University of Vermont, (802) 6563096, USA
Carrying capacity has been a long-standing issue in management of parks, outdoor
recreation and tourism. Contemporary carrying capacity frameworks rely on formulation of indicators and standards of quality to define and manage carrying capacity. This
paper describes a programme of research to support estimation and management of
carrying capacity of Alcatraz Island, an historic site within Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, California, USA, and a heavily visited tourist attraction. Research
included: (1) a survey of visitors to Alcatraz Island to identify indicators and standards
of quality for the visitor experience; and (2) development of a computer simulation
model of visitor use to estimate maximum daily use levels without violating standards
of quality. Study findings are used to estimate a range of carrying capacities for the
prison cellhouse and for the island as a whole.

Carrying Capacity
The question of how much public use can be accommodated in a park or
related tourist attraction is often framed in terms of carrying capacity. Indeed,
much has been written, in both the scientific literature and popular press, about
the carrying capacity of parks and related tourist attractions (e.g. Manning, 2001;
Mitchell, 1994; Stankey & Manning, 1986; Wilkinson, 1995). The underlying
concept of carrying capacity has a rich history in the natural resource professions. In particular, it has been applied in wildlife and range management where
it refers to the number of animals that can be maintained in a given habitat
(Dasmann, 1964). Carrying capacity has obvious parallels and intuitive appeal in
the field of park and tourism management. However, the first rigorous applications of carrying capacity to management of parks and related areas did not
occur until the 1960s.
These initial scientific applications suggested that the concept was more
complex in this new management context. At first, as might be expected, the
focus was placed on the relationship between visitor use and environmental
conditions. The working hypothesis was that increasing numbers of visitors
cause greater environmental impact as measured by soil compaction, destruction of vegetation and related variables. It soon became apparent, however, that
there was another critical dimension of carrying capacity dealing with social
aspects of the visitor experience. Wagar (1964), for example, in his early and
0966-9582/02/05 0388-17 $20.00/0
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

2002 R. Manning et al.

Vol. 10, No. 5, 2002

388

Carrying Capacity of a Tourist Attraction

389

important monograph on the application of carrying capacity to outdoor recreation, reported that his study

Wagars point was that as more people visit a park or related area, not only can
the environmental resources of the area be affected, but the quality of the visitor
experience as well. Again, the working hypothesis was that increasing numbers
of visitors cause greater social impacts as measured by crowding and related
variables. Thus, as applied to parks and related tourist attractions, carrying
capacity has two components: environmental and social.
The early work on carrying capacity has since blossomed into an extended
literature on the impacts of visitor use and their application to carrying capacity
(e.g. Graefe et al., 1984; Hammitt & Cole, 1998; Kuss et al., 1990; Lime & Stankey,
1971; Manning, 1985, 1999; Shelby & Heberlein, 1986; Stankey & Lime, 1973). But
despite this growing scientific literature, efforts to determine and apply carrying
capacity have sometimes failed. The principal difficulty lies in determining how
much impact, such as crowding, is too much. Theoretical development, backed
up by empirical research, generally confirms that increasing use levels and
encounters among visitors leads to increased environmental and social impacts.
But how much impact should be allowed? This basic question is often referred to
as the limits of acceptable change (Frissell & Stankey, 1972; Lime, 1970). Given
substantial demand for public use of parks and related areas, some decline or
change in the quality of natural/cultural resources and the visitor experience
appears inevitable. But how much decline or change is acceptable or appropriate
before management intervention is warranted?
A
B

Crowding

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

was initiated with the view that carrying capacity of recreation lands could
be determined primarily in terms of ecology and the deterioration of areas.
However, it soon became obvious that the resource-oriented point of view
must be augmented by consideration of human values.

Y2
2
Y1
1

X11

X2
2
Visitor Use

Figure 1 Hypothetical relationships between visitor use and crowding

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

390

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

This issue is illustrated graphically in Figure 1. This figure addresses the social
impact of crowding, and two hypothetical relationships between visitor use and
crowding are shown. It is clear from both that visitor use and crowding are
related: increasing numbers of visits cause visitors to feel increasingly crowded.
However, it is not clear at what point carrying capacity has been reached. The
hypothetical relationships in Figure 1 suggest that some crowding is inevitable,
given even relatively low levels of visitor use. Thus, some level of crowding must
be tolerated if parks and related tourist attractions are to remain open for public
use. For the relationship defined by line A, X1 and X2 represent levels of visitor
use that result in differing levels of crowding as defined by points Y1 and Y2,
respectively. But which of these points Y1 or Y2, or some other point along this
axis represents the maximum amount of crowding that is acceptable? Ultimately, this is a value judgement. Again, the principal difficulty in carrying
capacity determination lies in deciding how much crowding (or of some other
impact) is acceptable. Empirical relationships such as those in Figure 1 can be
helpful in making informed decisions about carrying capacity, but they must be
supplemented with other information and, ultimately, management judgements.
To emphasise and further clarify this issue, some writers have suggested distinguishing between descriptive and evaluative (or prescriptive) components of
carrying capacity (Shelby & Heberlein, 1984, 1986). The descriptive component
of carrying capacity focuses on factual, objective data such as the types of relationships in Figure 1. For example, what is the relationship between the number
of visitors entering a park and the number of encounters that occur among
groups of visitors? Or what is the relationship between the level of visitor use and
visitor perceptions of crowding? The evaluative or prescriptive component of
carrying capacity determination concerns the seemingly more subjective issue of
how much impact or change in resource conditions and the quality of the visitor
experience is acceptable. For example, how many contacts between visitor
groups are appropriate? What level of perceived crowding should be allowed
before management intervention is needed?
Recent experience with carrying capacity suggests that answers to the above
questions can be found through formulation of management objectives and
development of associated indicators and standards of quality (Graefe et al.,
1990; Manning, 1997, 1998; Manning et al., 1998; National Park Service, 1997;
Stankey et al., 1985). This approach to carrying capacity focuses principal
emphasis on defining the degree of resource protection and the type of visitor
experience to be provided and maintained, monitoring conditions over time, and
adopting management practices to ensure that acceptable conditions have been
maintained.
Management objectives are broad, narrative statements that define the degree of
resource protection and the type of visitor experience to be provided. They are
based largely on review of the purpose and significance of the area under consideration. Formulation of management objectives may involve review of legal,
policy and planning documents; consideration by an interdisciplinary planning
and management team; historic precedent; local, regional, national or international context of the park or related tourist attraction; and public involvement.
Indicators of quality are measurable, manageable variables that reflect the
essence or meaning of management objects; they are quantifiable proxies or

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

Carrying Capacity of a Tourist Attraction

391

measures of management objectives. Indicators of quality may include elements

of both the biophysical and social environments. Standards of quality define the
minimum acceptable condition of indicator variables.
An example of management objectives, indicators and standards may be
helpful. Review of the US Wilderness Act of 1964 suggests that areas of the
National Wilderness Preservation System are to be managed to provide opportunities for visitor solitude. Thus, providing opportunities for solitude is an
appropriate management objective for most wilderness areas. Moreover, research
on wilderness use suggests that the number of visitors encountered along trails
and at campsites is important to wilderness visitors in defining solitude. Thus,
trail and camp encounters may be good indicators of quality and help to make
the general management objective of solitude more operational. Further research
suggests that wilderness visitors may have normative standards about how
many trail and camp encounters are acceptable before the quality of the visitor
experience declines to an unacceptable degree (Heberlein et al., 1986; Lewis et al.,
1996; Manning et al., 1996a, 1996b, 1999a; Roggenbuck et al., 1991; Shelby &
Vaske, 1991; Vaske et al., 1986; Whittaker & Shelby, 1988). Such data may help
define standards of quality.
By defining indicators and standards of quality, carrying capacity can be
determined and managed through an associated programme of monitoring and
management. Indicators of quality can be monitored and management actions
taken to ensure that standards of quality are maintained. If monitoring suggests
that standards of quality have been violated (or may soon be violated), then
carrying capacity has been exceeded and management action is required. This
basic approach to carrying capacity is central to contemporary park, recreation,
and tourism management frameworks, including Limits of Acceptable Change
(LAC) (Stankey et al., 1985), Visitor Impact Management (VIM) (Graefe et al.,
1990), and Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) (National Park
Service, 1997).
When and where feasible, the above approach to carrying capacity might be
supplemented by computer simulation modelling. Computer simulation models
of visitor use have been developed to estimate the relationship between visitor
use levels and selected indicators of quality, such as the number of encounters
among hiking groups (Manning & Potter, 1984; Potter & Manning, 1984;
Schechter & Lucas, 1978; Smith & Krutilla, 1976; Wang & Manning, 1999). Such
models could be used to estimate the maximum use level that could be accommodated in a park or related area without violating specified crowding-related
standards of quality. In this way, carrying capacity could be estimated.

Research to Estimate Carrying Capacity of Alcatraz Island

This paper describes a programme of research to help estimate and manage
carrying capacity of Alcatraz Island. The island is an historic site within Golden
Gate National Recreation Area, a unit of the US National Park System, and is a
heavily visited tourist attraction. It is located in San Francisco Bay and is widely
known for its history as a federal prison for incorrigible criminals. This history
has been romanticised and popularised in several books and movies. Consequently, demand to visit Alcatraz is high, visitation exceeds several hundred

392

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

thousand annually, and continues to grow rapidly. There is concern that visitation may exceed carrying capacity, and a programme of research was undertaken
to help estimate and manage carrying capacity of the island. This programme of
research was conducted to help apply the VERP framework noted above.

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

Indicators and standards of quality

Two components of research were conducted. The first focused on gathering
data that would help formulate indicators and standards of quality for the visitor
experience at Alcatraz Island. A survey of a representative sample of visitors was
conducted in the summer of 1998. Visitors were selected as they completed their
visit and waited to board a ferry to leave the island, and given a self-administered
questionnaire to complete as they travelled back to San Francisco. The first five
visitors in line for each returning ferry boat were selected and asked to participate in the survey. This yielded approximately 50 completed questionnaires for
each of the sampling days. The survey was conducted on 17 randomly selected
days during the peak use season (July, August and early September). The study
questionnaire was printed in five languages English, French, German, Italian,
and Japanese to help ensure that nearly all visitors could participate in the
survey. The sampling plan resulted in 854 completed questionnaires.
The study questionnaire addressed both indicators and standards of quality.
Indicators of quality were addressed through a series of open- and closed-ended
questions. Open-ended questions probed respondents for what they enjoyed
most and least about their visit to Alcatraz. Questions included What did you
enjoy most about your visit?, What did you enjoy least about your visit?, and If
you could ask the National Park Service to improve some things about the way
visitors experience Alcatraz Island, what would you ask managers to do?.
Close-ended questions asked respondents to rate the seriousness of several
potential problem issues. These issues included the number of visitors on the
island, the number of visitors on the ferry, the number of visitors on the tour of
the prison cellhouse, the number of visitors in the bookstores/gift shops, visitors making too much noise, and visitors not following rules and regulations. A
three-point response scale was used that ranged from 1 (not a problem) to 3 (big
problem).
Standards of quality focused on crowding-related issues. Specifically, a series
of questions measured crowding norms for the prison cellhouse, the principal
visitor attraction. Since use levels are relatively high in the prison cellhouse, a
visual approach was used to measure crowding norms (Manning et al., 1996a). A
series of computer-edited photographs was prepared for the Michigan Avenue
corridor of the prison cellhouse (an intregal part of the cellhouse) showing a
range of visitor use levels or people-at-one-time (PAOT). Study photographs
are shown in Figure 2. Respondents were asked to rate the acceptability of each
photograph on a scale that ranged from 4 (very unacceptable) to +4 (very
acceptable). In addition, respondents were asked to judge the photographs
using two other dimensions of evaluation (Manning et al., 1999a). These included
preference (Which photograph shows the level of use that you would prefer to
experience in the cellhouse?) and management action (Which photograph
shows the highest level of use that the National Park Service should allow in the
cellhouse? In other words, at what point should visitors be restricted from

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

Carrying Capacity of a Tourist Attraction

393

Figure 2 Study photographs

touring the cellhouse?). Finally, respondents were asked Which photograph

looks most like the number of visitors you typically saw on your tour of the
cellhouse today?.
Computer simulation model
The second component of research focused on developing a computer-based
simulation model of visitor use at Alcatraz Island. The primary purpose of the
model was to determine the relationship between the number of visitors and
potential standards of quality for the maximum PAOT in Michigan Avenue of
the cellhouse. In this way, carrying capacity could be estimated in relationship to
crowding-related standards of quality for the cellhouse. The model was
constructed using the commercial object-oriented dynamic simulation package,
Extend, developed by Image That, Inc. Model input was based on detailed visitor
counts and observations, including number of visitors per ferry, frequency of

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

394

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ferries, length of time between debarkation of visitors on the island and their
arrival into the cellhouse audiotour ticket line, time spent in the cellhouse
audiotour ticket line, and time spent touring the cellhouse.
The structure of the model was built with hierarchial blocks that represented
specific components of the Alcatraz Island visitor system. A block labelled
Dock generated simulated visitor groups as they disembarked from ferry boats.
A block labelled Up the Hill represents the time that visitors take to walk from
the dock to the prison cellhouse. Blocks labelled Audio Tour Line and Cashier
represent the time visitors spend in line waiting to enter the prison cellhouse and
purchase their audio tour tape and player. Blocks labeled Tour Beginning,
Tour Middle and Michigan Avenue represent the time that visitors take to
proceed through sections of the tour of the prison cellhouse. The data used to
build and operate these blocks were derived from the detailed counts and observations of visitor use described above. More detailed information on this
approach to simlation modelling and its application to outdoor recreation and
tourism can be found in Lawson and Manning (2002), Wang and Manning (1999),
and Wang et al. (2001).
A short survey was also administered to 187 visitors as they completed the
cellhouse audiotour to determine the relationship between PAOT in Michigan
Avenue as reported by visitors using the computer-edited photographs and the
actual PAOT in Michigan Avenue as estimated by the simulation model.

Study Findings: Estimates of Carrying Capacity

The sample of visitors to Alcatraz Island was characterised by the following
socioeconomic and demographic descriptors:
Most visitors come in small groups of family and friends.
Most visitors (71%) are from the United States, with 46 states and Washington, DC represented among the sample. A plurality of visitors are from
California.
A sizable minority of visitors (29%) are from outside United States, with 30
countries represented among the sample. A plurality of international visitors are from the United Kingdom.
The vast majority of visitors (82%) report that English is their first or native
language. Among those who did not report English as their first or native
language, the vast majority (86%) reported that they understood English
either very well or pretty well.
Visitors stay on Alcatraz Island an average of about two hours.
The vast majority of visitors (86%) are visiting Alcatraz Island for the first
(and probably only) time.
Nearly all visitors (93%) took the audiotour of the prison cellhouse.
Indicators and standards of quality
The first component of research yielded information on potential indicators
and standards of quality for the visitor experience at Alcatraz Island. Responses
to open-ended questions were coded verbatim, and then grouped into similar
categories. Frequency distributions and mean values were calculated for
responses to close-ended questions. Based on this analysis, the number of

Carrying Capacity of a Tourist Attraction

395

4
3
2

Acceptability

1
0
-1

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

-2
-3
-4
10

22

34

46

58

70

PAOT in Michigan Avenue

Figure 3 Norm curve

Table 1 Alternative crowding-related norms (PAOT) for Michigan Avenue

Evaluative dimension
Preference
25

Acceptability

Management Action

44

44

visitors in the prison cellhouse emerged as especially important in defining the

quality of the visitor experience at Alcatraz. The vast majority of respondents
(75%) reported that the audiotour of the cellhouse was the element of their experience that they enjoyed the most. Moreover, the number of visitors on the tour of
the cellhouse was rated by respondents as the most problematic of six potential
issues on the island; 54% reported that this was either a big problem or a small
problem. Thus, the number of visitors in the cellhouse is a good indicator of
quality in that it is measurable, manageable, and important in defining the
quality of the visitor experience.
Data on standards of quality for the number of people in the cellhouse are
shown in Figure 3 and Table 1. Figure 3 graphs the average acceptability ratings
for the six study photographs. As this norm curve illustrates, 44 PAOT in Michigan Avenue represents a threshold of acceptability the point at which
aggregate sample ratings fall out of the acceptable range and into the unacceptable range. Table 1 reports summary findings for all three evaluative dimensions
explored acceptability, preference, and management action. Respondents
would prefer to see an average of 25 PAOT in Michigan Avenue, think the

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

396
110
100
90
80

PAOT

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

0 am
9:30

480
5:30
pm
Time of Simulation Day

Figure 4 PAOT in Michigan Avenue over the minutes of a simulated day

National Park Service should allow a maximum of 44 PAOT, and (as noted
above) would find a maximum of 44 PAOT to be acceptable. These data suggest a
potential range of crowding-related standards of quality. Neither of the points
defining this range (25 to 44), nor any of points along this range, are necessarily
any more valid than any other. Each point has potential strengths and weaknesses. For example, standards of quality based on preference-related norms
may result in very high quality visitor experiences but would restrict access to a
relatively low number of visitors. In contrast, standards of quality based on
acceptability or management action allow access to a greater number of visitors
but may result in visitor experiences of lesser quality. Findings that offer insights
into multiple evaluative dimensions provide a potentially rich base of information and may lead to formulation of the most thoughtful and informed standards
of quality. Such data allow more explicit understanding of the potential tradeoffs
between use level and quality of the visitor experience.
Computer simulation model
The second element of research developed a computer-based simulation
model of visitor use at Alcatraz Island. The model was used to estimate the
maximum total daily use levels (i.e. daily carrying capacities) that could be
accommodated without violating the normative crowding standards shown in
Table 1. Model output could be generated in several graphic and numerical
forms. For example, Figure 4 traces minute-by-minute PAOT levels in Michigan
Avenue over the duration of a simulated day. This particular model run was
generated using an average summer day total use level of 4464 visitors (derived
from the counts of visitor use taken to construct the model). It can be seen from
the graph that the number of visitors in Michigan Avenue fluctuates between
about 50 and about 90 throughout most of the day. The model was ultimately run
multiple times (to average out the randomness associated with each individual
model run) to estimate the maximum total daily use levels that could be

Carrying Capacity of a Tourist Attraction

397

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

Table 2 Alternative daily carrying capacities of Alcatraz Island

Standards of quality

Daily carrying capacity

Preference (25 PAOT)

2560

Acceptability (44 PAOT)

4800

Management action (44 PAOT)

4800

accommodated on the island without violating each of the crowding-related

norms shown in Table 1 more than 10% of the time, and findings are shown in
Table 2. (This 10% allowance is discussed later in the paper.) It is clear from Table
2 that there is a range of daily carrying capacities (from approximately 2500
visitor per day to approximately 4800 visitors per day) for Alcatraz Island
depending upon the crowding-related standard of quality that is selected. A
daily carrying capacity could be implemented relatively easily through management of the ferry system serving the island.
As noted earlier, a short survey was also administered to 187 visitors as they
completed their audiotour of the cellhouse. Visitors were asked to select one of
the study photographs of Michigan Avenue (described above) that looked most
like the PAOT they typically saw at this location. The PAOT in the photographs
selected by respondents averaged 35. The simulation model estimates that on the
days when the survey was conducted there was an average of 70 PAOT in Michigan Avenue. This suggests there is a 2 to 1 ratio of the actual PAOT in Michigan
Avenue and the number of people that can be seen at any one time. This is due to
the fact that people in the foreground and middle ground tend to obscure some
people in the middle ground and background. Thus, the crowding-related
norms derived by the photographs underestimate the actual PAOT that can be
accommodated in Michigan Avenue by about half. That is, if visitors report that a
maximum of 44 PAOT is acceptable in Michigan Avenue (the PAOT visitors find
acceptable to see), then there can actually be approximately 88 PAOT in Michigan Avenue.
A final analytical approach used in this study employed the computer simulation model of visitor use to explore the effect of alternative ferry schedules on
carrying capacity. Currently, ferries depart San Francisco for Alcatraz Island
every half hour from 9.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. If ferry departures were reduced to
every hour, daily carrying capacity would also be substantially reduced. Relatively large numbers of visitors arriving at the same time would result in many
visitors seeing relatively large PAOTs in Michigan Avenue. For example (as
reported in Table 2), using the acceptability and management action standards of
quality of 44 PAOT, the computer simulation model estimates that approximately 4800 visitors per day could be accommodated on Alcatraz Island
without violating that standard of quality more than 10% of the time. This analysis is based on the existing ferry schedule of departures every half hour.
However, when ferries depart only every hour, the computer simulation model
estimates that only 3200 visitors per day could be accommodated without
violating the 44 PAOT standard of quality more than 10% of the time. Similarly,

398

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

for the preference based standard of quality, daily carrying capacity drops from
approximately 2500 visitors per day under the existing ferry schedule to approximately 1840 visitors per day under the reduced ferry schedule. Comparable
increases in carrying capacity are not possible in this case by increasing the
frequency of ferry service beyond the existing schedule. For example, increasing
the frequency of departures to every 15 minutes would increase acceptability
and management action based carrying capacity from approximately 4800 visitors per day (under existing ferry service) to approximately 4896 visitors per day,
and would increase preference based carrying capacity from approximately 2560
visitors per day to approximately 2656 visitors per day.

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

Discussion
The programme of research described in this paper raises a number of issues
regarding estimation and management of carrying capacity of parks and related
tourist attractions. As noted at the beginning of this paper, an emerging principle
of carrying capacity is that decision-making must be guided by management
objectives and associated indicators and standards of quality. A corollary of this
principle is that there is no one inherent carrying capacity of a park or tourist
attraction. Rather, each park or tourist attraction (or even site within such an
area) has a range of capacities depending upon the degree of resource protection
and type of visitor experience to be provided.
Data developed in this study illustrate this point. The number of people
encountered (PAOT) in the prison cellhouse is a potentially good indicator of
quality. Study findings show that nearly all visitors take the audiotour of the
prison cellhouse, and feel this is the highlight of their visit. However, there are
indications that visitors are concerned with growing use levels in the cellhouse.
Visitors rated crowding in the cellhouse as the most problematic of several
visitor-related issues. Moreover, visitor perceptions of current use levels in the
cellhouse are approaching the maximum PAOT judged acceptable (as reported
in Table 2). Finally, visitors rated the prison cellhouse as somewhat crowded
(an average of 4.2 on a 9-point crowding scale that ranged from 1 (not at all
crowded) to 9 (extremely crowded)), and this represented the highest level of
crowding for any location on the island. However, standards of quality for this
indicator vary substantially, depending upon the evaluative dimension used in
the study (i.e. the type of visitor experience). Crowding norms ranged from a low
associated with preference (a very high quality experience) to a high associated
with acceptability and management action (a lower quality experience). The
carrying capacity of the prison cellhouse, and ultimately Alcatraz Island as a
whole, varies accordingly.
A related principle of carrying capacity is that some element of management
judgement must be exercised. Again, the data developed in this study illustrate
this principle. What point (or points) along the range of standards of quality and
associated carrying capacities should be selected for management purposes?
This is ultimately a judgement that should consider a variety of other factors
inherent in carrying capacity, including the purpose and significance of the area
(as may be defined in law or policy), the fragility of natural and/or cultural
resources, financial and/or personnel resources available for management,

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

Carrying Capacity of a Tourist Attraction

399

historic precedent, and interest group politics. Management judgements about

standards of quality and associated carrying capacities are not necessarily
either/or decisions. In fact, it may be highly desirable to provide a spectrum of
visitor opportunities within a park or tourist attraction, among such sites within
a region, and/or over time.
Even though management judgements must ultimately be rendered in determining and managing carrying capacity, such judgements must be as informed
as possible. The data reported in this study offer an empirical foundation for such
judgements. Study data suggest PAOT standards in Michigan Avenue in the
range of 25 to 44, depending on the evaluative dimension used. Additional study
data and other considerations may suggest a standard of quality in the high end
of this range. First, the low end of this range is associated with visitor preferences and does not include explicit consideration by respondents of the
tradeoffs between crowding (or lack of crowding) and maintaining reasonable
public access to Alcatraz. In contrast, the upper end of this range is associated
with the use level visitors feel the National Park Service should allow, and is
more explicitly informed by tradeoffs between crowding and public access. (The
question asked visitors to select the photograph that represented the point at
which visitors should be restricted from touring the cellhouse.) This issue is
reinforced by two other sets of questions that addressed tradeoffs between
crowding and access. Visitors were asked to rate the importance (on a five-point
scale ranging from 1 (very important) to 5 (very unimportant)) of crowding
(defined as the ability to visit Alcatraz Island without it being crowded) and
availability of tickets to visit the island (defined as the ability to get a ticket when
wanted). These attributes were judged to be nearly equally important (average
importance ratings of 1.76 and 1.82 respectively). Visitors were also asked to allocate 10 points of importance between crowding and access. Once again, both
issues were judged to be important, with crowding receiving an average of 5.4
points of importance and access receiving an average of 4.6.
Second, public demand to visit Alcatraz Island is very high, and it may be
unrealistic and ultimately unacceptable to greatly restrict public access to
achieve a very low level of crowding. Third, the crowding norms measured in
this study are slightly underestimated. A small number of respondents (between
28 and 30, depending on the question) reported that all of the study photographs
were acceptable or that the National Park Service should not limit use at any
point represented in the study photographs. These responses could not be
included mathematically in the values reported in Table 2. Fourth, current use
levels are perceived by respondents to be about 41 PAOT in Michigan Avenue,
and visitors reported feeling somewhat crowded. This suggests that use levels
could be at least a little higher without causing very high levels of perceived
crowding. Fifth, since current use levels average near the high end of the range of
potential standards of quality, it may be politically unrealistic to set standards
near the low end of the range. Sixth, most visitors to Alcatraz are first-time visitors, and many live outside California and even outside the US. This suggests
that for many visitors, this may be their only realistic opportunity to visit
Alcatraz, and management decisions about crowding should be made in light of
strong public demand to visit the island. Finally, overall visitor enjoyment of
Alcatraz Island is very high despite some degree of crowding in the prison

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

400

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

cellhouse. For example, using a response scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5

(strongly disagree) visitors were asked the extent to which they agreed or
disagreed with the statement I enjoyed my visit to Alcatraz Island. The average
score was 1.52.This suggests that management decisions about carrying capacity
of Alcatraz Island should not be made exclusively on the basis of crowding in the
prison cellhouse.
As noted above, it may be wise to consider a range of standards of quality and
associated carrying capacities for Alcatraz Island. Since the island is relatively
small and the prison cellhouse is the icon visitor attraction, it may not be feasible
to do this in a spatial or geographic way. However, alternative standards of
quality and associated carrying capacities could be established on a temporal
basis. For example, a relatively high carrying capacity could be established for
the summer peak visitor use season and a lower carrying capacity during the off
seasons. Moreover, the National Park Service has recently begun special evening
tours of the island, and these could be managed to a different standard of quality,
thereby providing a diversity of visitor experiences.
Finally, study findings illustrate that carrying capacity can be influenced by
alternative management practices. For example, the frequency of ferry departures can substantially affect daily carrying capacities.
The programme of research described in this paper relies on several distinctive
methodological approaches. First, visitor surveys provide the empirical foundation for the indicators and standards of quality developed, and the carrying
capacities ultimately derived. This is important as it involves those who are most
directly interested in this site and who have much to gain or lose as a result of
management decisions. It may be wise, when and where feasible, to expand this
research to other interest groups as well, including residents of local communities and even the general population (Manning et al., 1999a).
Second, a visual approach is used to measure crowding-related norms. A
visual approach may be more realistic and valid than conventional narrative
and numeric approaches (i.e. asking respondents to evaluate encountering
selected numbers of other people), especially in relatively high use contexts
(Manning et al., 1999a). Research suggests that visitors may process some
encounters with other people at a subconscious level, especially when such people
are perceived to be like the respondent in terms of recreation activity, behaviour,
and other appearance. A visual approach to measuring crowding norms allows for
subconscious processing, while narrative/numerical approaches call explicit
attention to all persons encountered. When and where feasible, visual approaches
might be extended to normative evaluation of other recreation-related impacts
such as resource impacts to trails and campsites, litter, vandalism and graffiti.
Third, multiple evaluative dimensions (preference, acceptability, and management action) were employed in asking respondents to evaluate alternative use
levels. Resulting data are complex, but provide empirical, detailed insights into
how visitors feel about alternative use levels, including how use levels affect the
quality of the visitor experience, and tradeoffs visitors might make between
avoiding crowding and maintaining reasonable public access to parks and
related tourist attractions (Lawson & Manning, 2001; Manning et al., 1999a).
Fourth, computer simulation modelling was used to estimate carrying capacities. Contemporary carrying capacity frameworks such as LAC and VERP

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

Carrying Capacity of a Tourist Attraction

401

suggest that carrying capacity is determined through monitoring of indicators of

quality. When monitoring suggests that standards of quality have been violated,
carrying capacity has been reached. However, computer simulation modelling
allows estimation of visitor use levels (i.e. carrying capacities) that will violate
selected standards of quality. This facilitates a more proactive approach to
defining and managing carrying capacity, and enables estimates of carrying
capacity under alternative management scenarios such as more or less frequent
ferry schedules.
Clearly, the programme of research described in this paper has important limitations. First, it addresses social carrying capacity only. The resource component
of carrying capacity noted at the beginning of this paper also needs research and
management attention. However, the methodological approaches outlined
above may have some application to the resource component of carrying
capacity, or at least the interaction between these components. For example,
recreation impacts to soil and vegetation at campsites have a potentially important aesthetic component, and the visual approach to measuring normative
standards for such impacts may be useful in formulating standards of quality for
these resource-related indicators of quality.
Second, even within the social component of carrying capacity, this study
addresses only crowding-related indicators and standards of quality. The visitor
survey conducted at Alcatraz Island suggests the importance of crowdingrelated indicators, but also suggests other potential indicators of quality such as
noise, availability of information/education about the island, and visitor compliance with rules and regulations. Expanded treatment of other potential indicator
variables and associated standards is warranted.
Third, estimation of carrying capacities from the computer simulation model
allowed for standards of quality to be violated up to 10% of the time. This allowance was factored into modelling because it may not be reasonable to prescribe
that standards of quality will never be violated. Visitor use of parks and related
tourist attractions has an inherent random element that tends to result in occasional peaks or spikes of activity and associated encounters. The graph in Figure
4 tracing minute-by-minute PAOT levels in Michigan Avenue is representative.
Occasionally, by happenstance, a number of visitor groups may arrive at an
attraction site simultaneously, and this may result in isolated spikes in PAOT
levels. Total use levels would have to be kept very low to ensure that these spikes
never (or rarely) occur, and this may not serve public interests for reasonable
access to parks and related tourist attractions. A 10% allowance was adopted in
this study, but this figure was arbitrarily chosen. Additional research is warranted
to derive a more empirically sound basis for specifying this allowance.
Finally, it should be noted that the concept of carrying capacity of parks and
related tourist attractions has been controversial. Carrying capacity has been
variously characterised as slippery (Alldredge, 1973), elusive (Graefe et al.,
1984) and illusive (Becker et al., 1984). In fact, a recent special issue of the
Journal of Sustainable Tourism Vol. 9, No. 5 was devoted to assessing the
complexity of carrying capacity and related topics. However, there is emerging
consensus that management-by-objective approaches, such as the VERP framework, are most appropriate for analysing and managing carrying capacity
(Manning, 2001; McCool & Lime, 2001). There remains disagreement on some

402

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

aspects of carrying capacity, including the ability to specify a numerical carrying

capacity (McCool & Lime, 2001). However, in the case of this study of Alcatraz
Island, numerical carrying capacities are thought to be justified because (1) the
primary indicator of quality of the visitor experience is the number of other visitors in the prison cellhouse, and (2) a computer simulation model of visitor use
was developed to estimate the maximum daily use level of Alcatraz without
violating standards for this indicator variable.

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

Conclusions
The programme of research described in this paper was designed to support
application of the concept of carrying capacity to Alcatraz Island, an historic site
within the US National Park System, and an important tourist attraction. In
particular, it was designed to provide an empirical foundation for application of
the contemporary carrying capacity framework, VERP. Study findings suggest a
potentially important crowding-related indicator of quality (PAOT within the
prison cellhouse), a range of potential standards for this indicator variable, and
associated carrying capacities for the prison cellhouse and the Island as a whole.
Management judgements will still have to be rendered in choosing among alternative standards of quality and associated carrying capacities (or perhaps more
than one standard and carrying capacity to facilitate a diversity of visitor opportunities at the island). However, study data help to provide an informed basis for
such management judgements.
Within the field of parks and outdoor recreation, the concept of carrying
capacity has traditionally been applied to resource-based parks and related
areas. Nevertheless, the research described in this paper suggests that contemporary, indicator-based carrying capacity frameworks such as LAC and VERP,
along with an associated programme of research, can be applied to heavily used
historic sites and tourist attractions that include significant elements of the built
environment. In such cases, indicators of quality may vary from those conventionally used in outdoor recreation, such as the number of encounters with other
groups along trails per day and resource impacts to trails and campsites. Recent
and current research, for example in highly developed, urban recreation areas,
suggests that visitors are concerned with crowding and other recreation-related
impacts, but that these impacts are manifested in other ways. For example, a
potential indicator of quality for the visitor experience at Statue of Liberty
National Monument is the time required to wait in line to enter the Statue
(Manning et al., 1999b), and potential indicators of quality for the visitor experience
at Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area include the amount of litter,
vandalism and grafitti seen (Manning et al., 2001). Application of carrying capacity
frameworks and associated programmes of research should be expanded to a
full spectrum of parks and related tourist attractions to ensure protection of their
resource base and the quality of the visitor experience.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Professor Robert E. Manning,
School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 356 Aiken Centre, Burlington,
VT 05405, USA (rmanning@nature.snr.uvm.edu).

Carrying Capacity of a Tourist Attraction

403

Acknowledgements
Appreciation is expressed to National Park Service staff who assisted with this
study, including Marilyn Hof, Terri Thomas, and Nancy Horner.

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

References
Alldredge, R. (1973)Some capacity theory for parks and recreation areas. Trends 10, 209.
Becker, R., Jubenville, and Burnett, G. (1984) Fact and judgement in the search for a social
carrying capacity. Leisure Sciences 6: 47586.
Dasmann, R. (1964) Wildlife Biology. New York: John Wiley.
Frissell, S. and Stankey, G. (1972) Wilderness environmental quality: Search for social and
ecological harmony. Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters Annual Conference
(pp. 17083). Hot Springs, AR: Society of American Foresters.
Graefe, A., Vaske, J. and Kuss, F. (1984) Social carrying capacity: An integration and
synthesis of twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences 6, 395431.
Graefe, A., Kuss, F. and Vaske, J. (1990). Visitor Impact Management: The Planning Framework. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.
Hammitt, W. and Cole, D. (1998) Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. New York:
John Wiley.
Heberlein, T., Alfano, G. and Ervin, L. (1986) Using a social carrying capacity model to
estimate the effects of marina development at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.
Leisure Sciences 8, 25774.
Kuss, F., Graefe, A. and Vaske, J. (1990) Visitor Impact Management: A Review of Research.
Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.
Lawson, S. and Manning, R. (2001).Solitude versus access: A study of tradeoffs in outdoor
recreation using indifference curve analysis. Leisure Sciences 23, 113.
Lawson, S. and Manning, R. (2002) Using simulation modeling to facilitate proactive
monitoring and adaptive management of social carrying capacity at Arches National
Park, Utah, USA. Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreationaland Protected
Areas (pp. 20510). Vienna, Austria: Bodenculture University.
Lewis, M., Lime, D. and Anderson, P. (1996) Paddle canoeists encounter norms in Minnesotas Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness. Leisure Sciences 18, 14360.
Lime, D. (1970) Research for determining use capacities of the Boundary Waters Canal
Area. Naturalist 21 (4), 913.
Lime, D. and Stankey, G. (1971) Carrying capacity: Maintaining outdoor recreation
quality. Recreation Symposium Proceedings (pp. 17484). USDA Forest Service.
Manning, R. and Potter, F. (1984) Computer simulation as a tool in teaching park and
wilderness management. Journal of Environmental Education 15, 39.
Manning, R. (1985) Crowding norms in backcountry settings: A review and synthesis.
Journal of Leisure Research 17, 7589.
Manning, R., Lime, D., Freimund, W. and Pitt, D. (1996a)Crowding norms at frontcountry
sites: A visual approach to setting standards of quality. Leisure Sciences 18, 3959.
Manning, R., Lime, D. and Hof, M. (1996b) Social carrying capacity of natural areas:
Theory and application in the US National Parks. Natural Areas Journal 16, 11827.
Manning, R. (1997) Social carrying capacity of parks and outdoor recreation areas. Parks
and Recreation 32, 328.
Manning, R. (1998) To provide for the enjoyment: Recreation management in the
National Parks. George Wright Forum 15, 620.
Manning, R., Jacobi, C., Valliere, W. and Wang, B. (1998) Standards of quality in parks and
recreation. Parks and Recreation 33, 8894.
Manning, R. (1999) Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Corvallis: Oregon State University.
Manning, R., Valliere, W., Wang, B. and Jacobi, C. (1999a) Crowding norms: Alternative
measurement approaches. Leisure Sciences 21, 97115.
Manning, R., Valliere, W., Wang, B., Lawson, S. and Treadwell, J. (1999b) Research to
Support Visitor Management at Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island National Monuments. University of Vermont Park Studies Laboratory.

Downloaded By: [University of Otago] At: 06:15 17 February 2010

404

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Manning, R. (2001) Visitor experience and resource protection: A framework for

managing the carrying capacity of National Parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19 (1), 93108.
Manning, R., Budruk, M., Valliere, W., Lawson, S. and Laven, D. (2001) Research to Support
Carrying Capacity Analysis at Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. University of
Vermont Park Studies Laboratory.
McCool, S. and Lime, D. (2001) Tourism carrying capacity: Tempting fantasy or useful
reality? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9 (5), 37288.
Mitchell, J. (1994) Our National Parks. National Geographic 186 (4), 155.
National Park Service (1997) VERP: The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP)
Framework - A Handbook for Planners and Managers. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center.
Potter, F. and Manning, R. (1984) Application of the wilderness travel simulation model to
the Appalachian Trail in Vermont. Environmental Management 8, 54350.
Roggenbuck, J., Williams, D., Bange, S. and Dean, D. (1991) River float trip encounter
norms: Questioning the use of the social norms concept. Journal of Leisure Research 23,
13353.
Schechter, M. and Lucas, R. (1978) Simulation of Recreational Use for Park and Wilderness
Management. Baltimore: John Hopkins University.
Shelby, B. and Heberlein, T. (1984) A conceptual framework for carrying capacity determination. Leisure Sciences 6, 43351.
Shelby, B. and Heberlein, T. (1986) Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis, OR:
Oregon State University.
Shelby, B. and Vaske, J. (1991) Using normative data to develop evaluative standards for
resource management: A comment on three recent papers. Journal of Leisure Research 23,
17387.
Smith, V. and Krutilla, J. (1976) Structure and Properties of a Wilderness Travel Simulator.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future.
Stankey, G. and Lime, D. (1973) Recreational Carrying Capacity: An Annotated Bibliography.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-3.
Stankey, G., Cole, D., Lucas, R., Peterson, M., Frissell, S. and Washburne, R. (1985) The
Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report INT-176.
Stankey, G. and Manning, R. (1986) Carrying capacity of recreation settings. A Literature
Review: The Presidents Commission on Americans Outdoors. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, M-47M-57.
Vaske, J., Graefe, A., Shelby, B., and Heberlein, T. (1986) Backcountry encounter norms:
Theory, method and empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research 18, 13753.
Wagar, J.A. (1964) The Carrying Capacity of Wild Lands for Recreation. Forest Science Monograph 7. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters.
Wang, B, Manning, R., Lawson, S. and Valliere, W. (2001) Estimating social carrying
capacity through computer simulation modeling: An application to Arches National
Park, Utah. Proceedings of the 2000 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (pp. 193
200). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-270.
Wang, B. and Manning, R. (1999) Computer simulation modeling for recreation management: A study on carriage road use in Acadia National Park, Maine, USA.
Environmental Management 23, 193203.
Whittaker, D., and Shelby, B. (1988) Types of norms for recreation impact: Extending the
social norms concept. Journal of Leisure Research 20, 26173.
Wilkinson, T. (1995) Crowd control. National Parks 69 (78), 3641.